DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. This communication is responsive to Application No. 18/962,888 filed on November 27, 2024. Claims 1-20 are subject to examination.
Claim Objections/Suggestions
3. Following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1, “communication, comprising:” (line 1) should be replaced with “communication, the NE comprising:” and “the plurality combinations of streams” (line 7) should be replaced with “the plurality of combinations of streams”;
in claim 11, “such that” (line 2) should be replaced with “in a manner that”;
in claim 15, “communication, comprising:” (line 1) should be replaced with “communication, the processor comprising:” and “the plurality combinations of streams” (line 6) should be replaced with “the plurality of combinations of streams”;
in claim 19, “(UE), comprising:” (line 1) should be replaced with “(UE), the method comprising:” and “the plurality combinations of streams” (line 4) should be replaced with “the plurality of combinations of streams”; and
in claim 20, “communication, comprising:” (line 1) should be replaced with “communication, the UE comprising:”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
5. Claims 3-4 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the Applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “variable nodes from the least connected factor graph” (lines 2-3). It is not clear whether said "variable nodes" is different from or the same as recited in lines 2-3 of claim 2 "variable nodes associated with a least connected factor graph". Hence, renders claim 3 and its dependent claim indefinite. Similar rejection applies to claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office Action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mansour (US 2024/0171231 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Mansour teaches a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, (Figure 1: 120 “STA” & Paragraph 12: FIG. 1 illustrates a wireless local area network (WLAN) system with one access point (AP) and multiple stations (STA) equipped with multiple antennas; Figure 8: 800 & Paragraph 21: FIG. 8 illustrates a process flow of a STA operable to send UL MU-MIMO transmissions; & Figure 11: 1100 & Paragraph 125: the method 800 is performed by processing logic, the processing logic includes in the processing device (e.g., processor) 1102 of FIG. 11) comprising: at least one memory (Figure 11: 1104 “Main Memory”); and at least one processor (Figure 11: 1102 “Processor”) coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to (Figure 1: 120 “STA”): receive a precoding matrix (Figure 8: 815 “receiving, at the STA from the AP, one or more precoder coefficients” & Paragraph 41: the precoder coefficient is a precoder vector or a precoder matrix) for enabling a plurality of combinations of streams of multiplexed layers (Figure 8: 800 & Paragraph 21: FIG. 8 illustrates a process flow of a STA operable to send UL MU-MIMO transmissions); encode a signal using the precoding matrix, the signal combined with signals from a plurality of different UEs associated with the multiplexed layers (Figure 1: 120a “STA 1”, 120b “STA 2” & 120c “STA 3” & Figure 8: 825 “performing, at the STA, multiple input multiple output (MIMO) precoding of the transmit data using the one or more precoder coefficients”); and transmit the encoded signal (Figure 1: 110 “AP” & Paragraph 43: receiving, at the AP 110, the uplink MU-MIMO transmissions from the one or more transmitting stations STA1 120a, STA2 120b and STA3 120c).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office Action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
I. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
II. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
III. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
IV. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
9. Claims 1 and 5-8, 10-13, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mansour and in view of Peng (US 2020/0153570 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 15 & 19, Mansour teaches a network equipment (NE) for wireless communication (Figure 1: 110 “AP” & Paragraph 12: FIG. 1 illustrates a wireless local area network (WLAN) system with one access point (AP) and multiple stations (STA) equipped with multiple antennas; Figure 7: 700 & Paragraph 20: FIG. 7 illustrates a process flow of an AP operable to receive UL MU-MIMO transmissions; & Figure 11: 1100 & Paragraph 117: the method 700 is performed by processing logic, the processing logic includes in the processing device (e.g., processor) 1102 of FIG. 11), comprising: at least one memory (Figure 11: 1104 “Main Memory”); and at least one processor (Figure 11: 1102 “Processor”) coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the NE to (Figure 1: 110 “AP”): create a precoding matrix for enabling a plurality of combinations of streams of multiplexed layers at a plurality of receiving antennas, wherein the plurality combinations of streams are associated with a plurality of user equipment (UEs) (Figure 7: 720 “computing, at the AP, one or more precoder coefficients for the plurality of transmitting stations based on the MU-MIMO channel estimation”, Paragraph 28: antennas of the AP & Paragraph 41: the precoder coefficient is a precoder vector or a precoder matrix); transmit the precoding matrix to the plurality of UEs associated with the multiplexed layers (Figure 1: 120a “STA 1”, 120b “STA 2” & 120c “STA 3”; & Figure 7: 725 “sending, from the AP to the plurality of transmitting stations, the one or more precoder coefficients and a transmission trigger”); detect a plurality of signals at the plurality of receiving antennas (Figure 1: 110 “AP”, Paragraph 28: antennas of the AP & Paragraph 43: receiving, at the AP 110, the uplink MU-MIMO transmissions from the one or more transmitting stations STA1 120a, STA2 120b and STA3 120c), wherein the plurality of signals are encoded using the precoding matrix (Figure 1: 110 “AP”, Paragraph 28: the precoder calculation is performed centrally at the AP); and decode the plurality of signals based at least in part on the precoding matrix (Figure 1: 110 “AP” & Paragraph 43: the data receiving from the transmitting stations are decoded). Although Mansour teaches the detected plurality signals, Mansour does not explicitly disclose to detect a plurality of signals at the plurality of receiving antennas using a factor graph-based detection algorithm. In a related field of endeavor, Peng discloses to detect a plurality of signals at the plurality of receiving antennas using a factor graph-based detection algorithm (Figure 5: “base station”, “user equipment 1”, “user equipment n”; Figure 12: 820 base station; Paragraph 133: MIMO… base station 820 includes multiple antennas & Paragraph 65: base station utilizes the sparsity of the transmitted signals, enabling detection of the respective data of the user equipments on the multiplexed time-frequency resources in accordance with the Message Passage Algorithm (MPA); the base station creates a factor graph model in accordance with the mapping matrices of the individual user equipments 1 to n after receiving the multiplexed signals, each user equipment being one variable node and each resource block being one factor node, where an edge existed between the variable and factor nodes represents that such resource block is occupied by that user equipment). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mansour’s detection to include a factor graph-based detection algorithm as in Peng. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to optimize communication, Paragraph 5.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Mansour and Peng teaches the NE of claim 1. In addition, Peng discloses wherein the precoding matrix is performed over sparse code multiple access (SCMA) multiplexed layers (Paragraph 32: optimized codebook design of the SCMA is achieved).
Regarding claim 6, Peng further discloses wherein the SCMA multiplexed layers are encoded using sparse codebooks and wherein each of the plurality of UEs is associated with a different sparse codebook (Figure 9A: “UE1…UE4” & “Modulation Scheme for SCMA”).
Regarding claim 7, Peng also discloses wherein a quantity of combinations of streams is bounded by a channel matrix rank (Figure 5: “base station”, “user equipment 1”, “user equipment n”, Paragraph 114: a rank of the matrix & Paragraph 133: MIMO).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Mansour and Peng teaches the NE of claim 1. In addition, Mansour discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the NE to multiply rows of the precoding matrix by the plurality of signals of each of the plurality of UEs associated with the multiplexed layers (Paragraph 78: the precoder matrix p(k) = … & Paragraph 79: the one or more transmitting stations yu(k) = pu(k) xu(k)).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Mansour and Peng teaches the NE of claim 1. In addition, Peng discloses wherein the precoding matrix is created based on a channel state information (CSI) associated with the NE satisfying an accuracy threshold (Figure 5: 503 “measure channel and obtain channel status”, Figure 9A “CQI” & Paragraph 73: the channel with the worst CQI in the plurality of the user equipments is determined).
Regarding claim 11, Peng further discloses wherein the plurality of UEs is divided into one or more clusters such that different clusters of the plurality of UEs are associated with different precoding matrices and different receiving antennas (Figure 9A “UE1…UE4” & Paragraph 73: the modulation scheme corresponding to the CQI of the user equipments UE2 to UE4 is QPSK, therefore QPSK is selected to be the modulation scheme for the SCMA of the four user equipments UE1 to UE4).
Regarding claim 12, Peng further discloses wherein the different clusters of the plurality of UEs are associated with different resource elements (REs) (Figure 9A “UE1…UE4” & Paragraph 90: the resource blocks 1 to 6 are utilized by the user equipments 1 to 4 for transmission).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Mansour and Peng teaches the NE of claim 1. In addition, Mansour discloses wherein the plurality of signals are received as one signal corresponding to a superposition of the plurality of signals from the multiplexed layers based on the precoding matrix (Figure 1: 110 “AP’, 120a “STA 1”, 120b “STA 2” & 120c “STA 3”, Paragraph 79: the overall transmit signal from the one or more transmitting signals is y(k) = p(k) x(k) & Paragraph 81: the transmit signal from the one or more transmitting stations is received at the AP).
10. Claims 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mansour, in view of Peng and in further view of Xu (US 2024/0356592 A1).
Regarding claim 9, although the combination of Mansour and Peng teaches the NE of claim 1, the combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the precoding matrix comprises a linear precoding matrix or a non-linear precoding matrix. In a related field of endeavor, Xu discloses wherein the precoding matrix comprises a linear precoding matrix or a non-linear precoding matrix (Figure 1: “UE”, “TRP” & Paragraph 170: precoding is classified into linear precoding and non-linear precoding, the linear precoding includes maximum ratio transmission (MRT), zero-forcing (ZF), a minimum mean square error (MMSE)). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination’s precoding to include linear precoding as in Xu. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to ensure accuracy, Paragraph 5.
Regarding claim 14, Xu further discloses wherein the precoding matrix is based on a singular value decomposition of a channel matrix, matched filtering, maximum ratio transmission, zero forcing, dirty paper coding, or a combination thereof (Figure 1: “UE”, “TRP” & Paragraph 170: precoding is classified into linear precoding and non-linear precoding, the linear precoding includes maximum ratio transmission (MRT), zero-forcing (ZF) and a minimum mean square error (MMSE)).
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 2-4 and 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and upon overcoming the objections/rejections as set forth above.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to SHAWKAT M. ALI whose telephone number is (571) 270-1639. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:30AM-3:30PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO AIR at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, SAM K. AHN can be reached on (571) 272-3044. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHAWKAT M ALI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights